The difference being those that don't have auto insurance aren't fined by The Government until they buy it from a website that doesn't work.

Also, your "Obamacare is law, so accept it" argument is B.S. Know what else was once law? Slavery, women not voting, etc. Also, that doesn't stop Obummer from constantly trying to change The 2nd Amendment.(And failing)

At any rate, this is just this idiots latest attempt to appease the do nothings, illegals, and leeches that voted for him. I mean The Government tried running The Post Office, Cash For Clunkers, etc., and it failed horribly. I'm sure this will work out much better.

Yes, newbie obamagluteus sniffer, I consider myself quite fortunate that I am not like Dan Rooney. And if my boss asked me to promote Obamacare I would actually tell him to go stick it. Mater of fact , my top client and I do talk politics (and he used to be an Obamaphile) quite often and I do NOT grovel for the sake of kissing a clients ass and he respects me for it. You see, patriots are NOT two faced, unlike you my little liberal

FUCK THE ROONEYS FOR BEING POLITICAL!!

One more thing - Obamacare is a joke as we all now can see and it will not be long before the House defunds this pile of shit progressive effort towards a communist one payer system. Despite how far Rooney sticks his face up Husseins rearend

ISFRY - this may get moved - but the subject was NOT materialized by us, it was brought on by ROONEY himself - so it IS fair game and it DOES ruin the respect many fans used to have for the Steeler organization - so it IS football oriented

isfry wrote:With all due respect to people on both sides of this completely non-football related thread, I seem to remember a time when the Stillers staff would move something like this to a non-football forum...

Guess I'm getting old and slow.

I am going to move this thread, but feel free to continue the discussion.

steelhammer - I just looked at the folder descriptions - Stiller Talk is described to be anything any everything about stiller football, while the Rant box is designed nor NON stiller stuff. I repeat - this is a ROONEY Steeler football story - just saying

PGHeaven wrote:steelhammer - I just looked at the folder descriptions - Stiller Talk is described to be anything any everything about stiller football, while the Rant box is designed nor NON stiller stuff. I repeat - this is a ROONEY Steeler football story - just saying

Yeah, I agree that if how ownership manages or what ownership is doing off the field, effects the product on the field, or if it effects fan support, then it is relevant to the "stiller talk forum", and that's why I left it there so long....but this thread has kind of evolved into a liberal/conservative political name-calling thing instead. So I decided to move it. I did leave a ghost title on the Stiller talk forum, because I still think the original topic is relevant. Perhaps if the thread returns to it's root's I'll return it to the original forum.

I think there was another thread in the stiller talk forum that was similar, but hadn't gotten as political. I can't find that thread now though.

Kind of torn on this one, we'll see where it goes. Like I said feel free to keep discussing. there is some relevance here.

here, I'll try keep the ball rolling in direction of football relevance: Would anyone even be having this discussion if the steelers were 4-2 instead of 2-4?

PGHeaven wrote:steelhammer - I just looked at the folder descriptions - Stiller Talk is described to be anything any everything about stiller football, while the Rant box is designed nor NON stiller stuff. I repeat - this is a ROONEY Steeler football story - just saying

What's hilarious is that if you look at the link to the article I posted, you'll notice that teams of democratic leaning owners totally OWN the super bowl. Those teams by far dominate the win category. Want Lombardis? Root for teams with democratic leaning owners. Have a nice life PG.

PG, you are one of my favorite people on this site. The phrase "obamagluteus sniffer" made me chuckle. As did labeling me a liberal, I voted for Bob Dole fer Christ's sake. I just think since we're the richest country on the planet, there should be a way to fix a broken healthcare system. Guess that makes me a commie. So hoist your confederate flag and put on your best Palin-Cruz in 2016 tshirt and demand another government shut down. It work so well for you guys last time.

Steeler76, are you trying to equate providing healthcare to people who don't have it to slavery? I think you're missing an important point here. You see, one is trying to help out the less fortunate and the other is fucking slavery.

Hammer, I don't think the teams record has anything to do with the discussion that's going on here. Too many people see things as black or white (pun intended), there is no room for grey anymore. This entire thread is ridiculous. Like it or not, the ACA is the law. Fight to overturn it as best you can. But until then, it's a big shit sandwich and we all have to take a bite. I fail to see how the Rooney's are being political in supporting the effort to spread the word. In fact, I would consider their actions to be Patriotic.

Steeler76, are you trying to equate providing healthcare to people who don't have it to slavery? I think you're missing an important point here. You see, one is trying to help out the less fortunate and the other is fucking slavery.

No, You're the one missing an important point; You're whole argument was "Obamacare is LAW, so by that rationale we need to shut up and accept it." Slavery and women not having the right to vote were both LAWS once too. Good thing we didn't just shut up and accept those "LAWS" as well. Point is that just because it's a "LAW" doesn't make it right.

And how the fuck does telling someone they have to by a product from a 3rd party or be fined if they don't "helping the less fortunate"??? It's not even Constitutional, but then your man never follows that, so.....

Steelers76 wrote:Steeler76, are you trying to equate providing healthcare to people who don't have it to slavery? I think you're missing an important point here. You see, one is trying to help out the less fortunate and the other is fucking slavery.

Steelers76 wrote:No, You're the one missing an important point; You're whole argument was "Obamacare is LAW, so by that rationale we need to shut up and accept it." Slavery and women not having the right to vote were both LAWS once too. Good thing we didn't just shut up and accept those "LAWS" as well. Point is that just because it's a "LAW" doesn't make it right.

Bubby wrote, "Like it or not, the ACA is the law. Fight to overturn it as best you can." Maybe you missed the point because you stopped reading because you flew into a rage.

Steelers76 wrote:And how the fuck does telling someone they have to by a product from a 3rd party or be fined if they don't "helping the less fortunate"??? It's not even Constitutional, but then your man never follows that, so.....

A. No insurance provider can survive if only the sick buy in. But they can survive quite well by not insuring the poor and sick. If everyone who can afford it buys in, then there is enough surplus funds to treat those too poor to afford health care. Or we can just tell the poor, single mom too indigent to afford health care who gets cancer to fuck off and die. She's probably poor because she's lazy and likes being a dependent victim and so she deserves to die, any way.

B. It went to the Supreme Court and it was affirmed as constitutional. Now before you say that it is not constitutional just because the supreme court says it is (you seem like you might actually respond this way), please go read the powers and function attributed to the supreme court in the constitution, Article Three, Section Two, and Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison. I fear you, and the other "patriots" in this thread, will be greatly disappointed in what you read there (assuming you can actually understand it ).

I personally wanted the ACA tweaked by implementing the very good Republican idea of opening up all markets to all insurance providers nationwide to drive costs down. Terrible that this was not implemented. But you can bet your ass the insurance companies were the ones who got that nixed.

Steelers76 wrote:Steeler76, are you trying to equate providing healthcare to people who don't have it to slavery? I think you're missing an important point here. You see, one is trying to help out the less fortunate and the other is fucking slavery.

Steelers76 wrote:No, You're the one missing an important point; You're whole argument was "Obamacare is LAW, so by that rationale we need to shut up and accept it." Slavery and women not having the right to vote were both LAWS once too. Good thing we didn't just shut up and accept those "LAWS" as well. Point is that just because it's a "LAW" doesn't make it right.

Bubby wrote, "Like it or not, the ACA is the law. Fight to overturn it as best you can." Maybe you missed the point because you stopped reading because you flew into a rage.

Steelers76 wrote:And how the fuck does telling someone they have to by a product from a 3rd party or be fined if they don't "helping the less fortunate"??? It's not even Constitutional, but then your man never follows that, so.....

A. No insurance provider can survive if only the sick buy in. But they can survive quite well by not insuring the poor and sick. If everyone who can afford it buys in, then there is enough surplus funds to treat those too poor to afford health care. Or we can just tell the poor, single mom too indigent to afford health care who gets cancer to fuck off and die. She's probably poor because she's lazy and likes being a dependent victim and so she deserves to die, any way.

B. It went to the Supreme Court and it was affirmed as constitutional. Now before you say that it is not constitutional just because the supreme court says it is (you seem like you might actually respond this way), please go read the powers and function attributed to the supreme court in the constitution, Article Three, Section Two, and Marshall's opinion in Marbury v. Madison. I fear you, and the other "patriots" in this thread, will be greatly disappointed in what you read there (assuming you can actually understand it ).

I personally wanted the ACA tweaked by implementing the very good Republican idea of opening up all markets to all insurance providers nationwide to drive costs down. Terrible that this was not implemented. But you can bet your ass the insurance companies were the ones who got that nixed.

This thread is epic.

The only thing epic here is your ignorance.

Bubby said I was "trying to equate slavery with healthcare", when anyone over the age of 10 could see that I wasn't. So FAIL.

And yes, this Health Care Law is so great, that;

-It will cost us taxpayers 103 Trillion Dollars(Source; Pittsburgh Tribune-Review) Great idea with the state of the economy.

-Business are either busting full time employees down to part time or laying them off because they can't afford to cover everybody.

-Insurance Premiums EVERYWHERE will skyrocket.

-Not all procedures are covered.

-Their own fucking website to get signed up doesn't even work.

-Obama and all his cronies that voted for this stupid thing EXEMPTED themselves from it, which should tell you how great it truly is.

-And as I already said but you didn't answer, how does forcing a poor person to by a product or be fined if they don't helping ANYONE???

And before you give one of your elist, I better than you answers, I could've sworn you said or implied you were done with this thread??? But that's what I can expect from one of the 37% that actually think Obummer is doing a fantastic job.

Bottom line, we all need health insurance. On one side you have the clearly flawed ACA, on the other you have, well, no plan at all. Sure, you can risk driving your car without auto insurance but if you get in an accident the costs of recovery can ruin your life. You can also get fined by the government if you're caught driving without insurance.The same applies to health care. Would any of you be willing to risk your life by going to the game in that hell-scape that is Oakland today without some sort of insurance policy? The place is a modern day Thunderdome. I'll be watching from the safety of a bar stool.

And so much for your "moving on" Bullshit. I read the article - it supports nothing - as I said - Rooney can give all the money he desires - just leave the Steelers the fuck out of it. Matter of fact - it would make me ecstatic if Danny Boy just made the plunge and gave every last cent he has to Obama. Then he can reside up his rectum for posterity

bubbybrister wrote:What are we talking about here? Mandatory healthcare through private insurance companies. The government mandates you have auto insurance to drive a car and I don't see where this is much different. The burden of the uninsured is paid for by those of us who buy insurance.

The government doesn't mandate that everyone drive a car. One must first make the choice to drive.So there is a choice in the auto insurance tax, and therefore, a difference.